In the case of Parteek Bansal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., the SC imposed Rs. 5 lakh fine on the wife’s father for filing false Section 498A IPC cases against the husband in different locations to harass him. The appellant, a Chartered Accountant was accused of subjecting his wife to cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Despite being acquitted in Hisar, complaints were filed against him in Udaipur and Rajasthan. The Court found the consecutive complaints abusive and imposed the fine directing 50% to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the rest to the appellant while quashing the FIR in Udaipur.
CASE DETAILS:
Parteek Bansal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2024 LiveLaw (SC) 317
Supreme Court
Coram: Justices Vikram Nath Prashant Kumar Mishra
BACKGROUND:
- The appellant, a Chartered Accountant married respondent no. 3, who was a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Udaipur at the time of marriage.
- Subsequently, complaints were filed against the appellant by respondent No. 2, the wife’s father in both Hisar and Udaipur.
- These complaints alleged that the appellant subjected his wife to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
- The complaint in Udaipur was lodged five days after the complaint in Hisar.
- Despite the appellant being acquitted by the Hisar Court, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision not to quash the FIR registered in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
OBSERVATIONS:
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the High Court made an error in refusing to quash the case registered based on the same allegations despite the Rajasthan Police being unaware of the previous case in Hisar where the accused was acquitted. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant’s argument stating that the High Court’s decision was flawed as it failed to recognize that the Rajasthan Police was aware of the earlier proceedings in Hisar.
The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint filed in Udaipur were identical to those in the complaint filed in Hisar and it was explicitly mentioned in the Udaipur complaint that a complaint had been lodged earlier in Hisar. Therefore, the investigating agency in Udaipur should have been aware of the previous complaint.
The Court further noted that the wife and her father had misused their official positions by lodging consecutive complaints against the appellant causing him to face trials in both Hisar and Udaipur. Based on these observations, the Court allowed the husband’s appeal and quashed the pending FIR in Udaipur.
Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lacs Only) on the respondents. The appellant was directed to deposit this amount with the Registrar of the Court within four weeks. Upon deposit, 50% of the amount would be transferred to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the remaining 50% would be given to the appellant.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court quashed the pending FIR in Udaipur and imposed a fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs on the wife’s father for filing a false Section 498A IPC case against the husband at different locations intending to harass him by subjecting him to trials in multiple places.
